ldmodell

Fratermal, I would not be surprised if the moralists who live in countries that are under Sharia Law also say that they, "do not see our support for presently existing and long-standing law on the definition of marriage as in any way unjust, hypocritical or discriminatory."

Your definition of marriage does not even have the longevity of theirs. It is a relatively recent one. Before you and "Theosaurus" [ :^) ] go ballistic on me, I will state for the record that gender-free marriage laws have no historical basis. The idea is to EXTEND the rights of legal protection to couples who cannot currently claim them. It is a NEW idea.

The duration of a tradition does not make it correct for all time. I am not suggesting that you need to abandon your beliefs, but merely consider whether they can never be examined by society when it evolves.

If you research sociology, you will find that marriage customs and mores are not the same everywhere and everywhen. Look at what the Bible said about the marriages of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our notions about marriage are a result of relatively modern dogma.

The solution to this problem is as simple as it is obvious: state and federal laws should no longer recognize “marriage” as having any legal status. Government can only recognize civil unions for legal property, tax, and protection rights. Decree that “marriage” is only a religious designation reserved for the various churches to authorize as they see fit. A couple could get Married or United or both as they believed necessary, but only the Union would have legal status. Make a prior Marriages retroactively Civil Unions and be done with it!

Thesaurusrex: an obvious pun merging a book of synonyms with a large, stupid, and lumbering reptile. If a "straw man" epithet, and an ad hominem argument is your only fall back position, you have picked and appropriate moniker, indeed.

What point could you possibly be making when you say, "you have confirmed what I was trying to say." I did exactly say, "Yes, that is what I think we should do." There is no "gotcha" there. I said it.

Thesaurusrex, asked whether I was suggesting that we "remove the public, societal aspect of marriage. " Yes, that is what I think we should do. I do not want the public institution of marriage to be constrained by the least common denominator.... by the minimum value that we can all agree upon.

Maybe he thinks we should return to Biblical marriage laws. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had multiple wives and kept concubines that could also produce legal heirs. It's funny how the folks that want to enforce "traditional" values seem to be sure that they, alone, can pick and choose which traditions they want to value.

So, fifty years is your personal window for cultural perfection and marital correctness. That would be before equal rights for women, of course. It is also before reproductive rights, and barely into the era of "the pill." What else are you diametrically opposed to? Is suffrage for 18 year-olds out, too? Would you like to bring back poll taxes?

While you opinions may reflect the dinosaur you use as a handle, time has not been kind to them.

It is not really such a big leap. Think about it. There are three basic parts to a legal marriage now: the license, the ceremony, and the contract. Of the three, only the license and contract are required by law.

The ceremony is optional. If that were defined as the only "marriage" part of the "civil union" process, zealots could happily go on defending it and not need any legal protection.

I am not sure what value to place on your ad hominem attack on me, Brother Evil, but to set the record straight, you singled out the religious aspect of my essay and ignored the rest.

There are three horses hitched to the Conservative wagon: Theocracy is only one; the others are Plutocracy, and Oligarchy. I thank the real and merciful God that we are NOT there yet, but it is tone deaf people like yourself who want their personal "morality" to be the law of the land. It is the people like you, who claim "natural laws" as their justification, who I fear.

"DOMA is NOT defending "the Christian model of marriage" but the universally accepted facts of life and natural law." If that were natural law, not Christian dogma, why is plural marriage so common in Polynesia, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East where Christianity is not the dominant religion?

"No one is saying that "gay rights" is criminal, although homosexual acts were until recently crimes and are in most religions" Is not the right to act gay a "gay right." Again, parsing words is not a valid argument.

"Abortion , indeed unrestricted elective abortion on demand, is in fact the sadly legal situation status in this country and many people of morality hope to try to change that" That is a prima facie statement that your opposition to abortion is a moral stance. That is what I called it. I don't deny your right to oppose the law; I do deny that is can be separated from its religious motivation.

"Why do you assume that something (as in an interventionist government policy) MUST be done. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. "

...and sometimes doing anything is better than standing still. If the water is swirling down the drain, is it "interventionist" to use a plug? Those with different opinions want different policies, but you imply that having NO policies is a good thing. "The government that governs least, governs best." I understand that. What I don't understand is wanting a government that does nothing.

That, however, is not what I was writing about. The idea that limiting Obama to one term is ALL that is needed to "ensure the recovery of our country" is not only flippant, it is absurd. I realize that McConnell was talking politics not policy, but his Party has been working too hard to make Obama fail, and not hard enough to do his job. I cannot believe that anyone votes to elect an official because they want them to do nothing.

The Republican Party made a calculated decision that anything that brings the country out of a Recession makes Obama look good, and more electable. ...High unemployment? Great! ...Stagnant business growth? Wonderful! ...Financial reforms? Never! ...Health care? Are you kidding??

There is nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion, but it is stupid to burn that house down because you don't like the drapes.

What did you make better? No talking points... just the facts. What got fixed? In March of '09 the DJI was at 6600. It is now over 11000. Do you want to end the financial programs? How about TARP? Of the $700B, $675B has already been paid back. Nope, can't dump that.

So what are you going to do, now? No talking points... just the facts.

"Uh, oh. Carefully avoided referring to the tea party? 'If the tea party ever got it's [sic] agenda passed into law ...' might suggest otherwise." Oh, ouch! You got me. I closed with a warning about the tea party. That obviously makes me wrong, wrong wrong! ...Oh, yeah. I also misplaced an apostrophe! I can't bear the shame.

Is that really your point?

How about this? "Many have tried to co-opt the movement, but they're the followers; they can't be the leaders because, in true grass roots fashion, there are none." The tea party you claim to support has been co-opted. Dick Armey... Glenn Beck... Michele Bachmann... The Koch Family Foundations... Sarah Palin...

Your "true grass roots fashion" is so noble sounding. Perhaps, as you say, you and your "serial disdain for a ruling class" are sincere, but remember, I did not write about the tea party (except in passing) I wrote about the ones who have co-opted the movement and are using the gullible and disaffected to gain power.

Go on being noble. Enjoy your "passion for liberty". You might be another Ron Paul, but there are an awful lot of Sharron Angles drowning out the voice of reason.